This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2015-08-12 |
JARDELEZA, J. |
||||
| Every statute must be so construed and harmonized with other statutes as to form a uniform system of jurisprudence.[75] In Vda. de Urbano v. Government Service Insurance System,[76] citing our earlier ruling in C&C Commercial Corporation v. National Waterworks and Sewerage Authority,[77] we held: On the presumption that whenever the legislature enacts a provision it has in mind tl1e previous statutes relating to the same subject matter, it is held that in the absence of any express repeal or amendment therein, the new provision was enacted in accord with the legislative policy embodied in those prior statutes, and they all should be construed together. Provisions in an act which are omitted in another act relating to the same subject matter will be applied in a proceeding under the other act, when not inconsistent with its purpose. Prior statutes relating to the same subject matter are to be compared with the new provisions; and if possible by reasonable construction, both are to be construed that effect is given to every provision of each. Statutes in pan (sic) materia, although in apparent conflict, are so far as reasonable possible construed to be m harmony with each other.[78] | |||||
|
2011-02-15 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| There is nothing, Your Honor. In our jurisprudence which deals with the situation whereby with that background as the material or pertinent antecedent that there could be no violation of the right of the petitioner to due process. What is the effect of notice, hearing if the judgment cannot come from an impartial adjudicator.[30] (emphasis and underscoring supplied) | |||||
|
2010-06-22 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| In reconciling Section 6 of Executive Order No. 756 with Section 28, Subsection (b) of Commonwealth Act No. 186,[23] as amended, uppermost in the mind of the Court is the fact that the best method of interpretation is that which makes laws consistent with other laws which are to be harmonized rather than having one considered repealed in favor of the other.[24] Time and again, it has been held that every statute must be so interpreted and brought in accord with other laws as to form a uniform system of jurisprudence - interpretere et concordare legibus est optimus interpretendi.[25] Thus, if diverse statutes relate to the same thing, they ought to be taken into consideration in construing any one of them, as it is an established rule of law that all acts in pari materia are to be taken together, as if they were one law.[26] We find that a temporary and limited application of the more beneficent gratuities provided under Section 6 of Executive Order No. 756 is in accord with the pre-existing and general prohibition against separate or supplementary insurance retirement and/or pension plans under Section 28, Subsection (b) of Commonwealth Act No. 186. | |||||
|
2004-03-01 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| It appearing that there is no dispute that this case involves an unperfected contract, the Civil Law principles governing contracts should apply. In Vda. de Urbano v. Government Service Insurance System,[22] it was ruled that a qualified acceptance constitutes a counter-offer as expressly stated by Article 1319 of the Civil Code. In said case, petitioners offered to redeem mortgaged property and requested for an extension of the period of redemption. However, the offer was not accepted by the GSIS. Instead, it made a counter-offer, which petitioners did not accept. Petitioners again offer to pay the redemption price on staggered basis. In deciding said case, it was held that when there is absolutely no acceptance of an offer or if the offer is expressly rejected, there is no meeting of the minds. Since petitioners' offer was denied twice by GSIS, it was held that there was clearly no meeting of the minds and, thus, no perfected contract. All that is established was a counter-offer.[23] | |||||